Purchase of a new medium-sized rescue and fire-fighting vehicle for the Volunteer Fire Department in Wysowa-Zdrój

The USTIE GORLICKIE MUNICIPALITY in Poland from Europe region has released this tender for 1. The subject of the contract is the delivery of a medium-sized rescue and firefighting vehicle for the Volunteer Fire Department in Wysowa-Zdrój. 2. A detailed description of the subject of the contract and the technical specification form for the offered vehicle are included in Appendix 1 to the Technical Specifications. 3. The vehicle must be brand new, technically functional, and free from physical and legal defects. The vehicle must meet all requirements of national and EU law, in particular regarding vehicle approval for road traffic, approval certificates, and certificates for use in fire protection. 4. The Ordering Party requires that the offered vehicle have a current and valid certificate of approval for use issued by the Scientific and Research Centre for Fire Protection – National Research Institute (CNBOP-PIB) or an equivalent solution. 5. The Ordering Party will recognize as equivalent a document (in particular a certificate, technical opinion or test report) issued by an independent, accredited conformity assessment body from another Member State of the European Union or European Economic Area, confirming that the offered vehicle meets all technical and operational requirements specified in the PN-EN 1846-2 standard (or its European equivalent EN 1846-2) and the relevant legal provisions regarding fire safety in force in the manufacturers country, guaranteeing a level of safety and functionality not lower than required by Polish regulations. 6. Wherever the subject of the contract is described by reference to standards, technical assessments, technical specifications and technical reference systems referred to in art. 101 sec. 1 item 2 and sec. 3 of the Public Procurement Law, the Ordering Party allows solutions equivalent to those described, and adds the words "or equivalent" to these references. 7. The Ordering Party allows the use of equivalent solutions, i.e. those that ensure at least the same quality, functional and operational parameters as the solutions indicated in the documentation. A Contractor proposing equivalent solutions must demonstrate their equivalence by submitting appropriate documents, in particular technical data sheets, certificates, declarations of conformity, or other evidence confirming compliance with the required parameters, along with their Polish translation. The use of equivalent solutions must not result in an increase in the Contractors remuneration or a reduction in the standard of the subject of the contract. 8. The Contractor must have and maintain, at its own expense, liability insurance for property and personal injury caused to third parties, as well as the consequences of such damage resulting from events that occurred during the performance of the contract. Claims for damage resulting from these events may be filed before the statute of limitations expires, with a cover amount no lower than the contract value for any and all events. 9.The contractor must provide a minimum 24-month warranty for the entire subject of the contract, including free inspections during the warranty period. 10. Other terms and conditions for the performance of the contract are specified in the contract template, constituting Appendix 2 to the Technical Specifications. 11. The ordering party does not allow partial offers. 12. The ordering party does not allow the submission of variant offers or offers in the form of electronic catalogs. 13. The ordering party does not provide for or require the submission of an offer after an on-site inspection or document review. 14. The ordering party does not divide the contract into parts for technical, organizational, or economic reasons. The subject of the contract is the delivery of a brand new, medium-sized rescue and firefighting vehicle, which constitutes an integral functional and technical unit. The chassis and specialized body must work closely together for the vehicle to properly perform its rescue and firefighting function. Dividing the contract into separate parts would be technically unjustified and could lead to incompatibility between individual vehicle components, which would prevent its proper functioning as a cohesive system. Additionally, it would make determining warranty liability more difficult, as defects could result from interactions between components supplied by different contractors. Executing the entire contract by a single contractor ensures full technical compatibility, uniform responsibility for the quality and functionality of the entire vehicle, and the possibility of efficient servicing. Failure to divide the contract does not restrict competition or hinder access for SMEs, as there are contractors on the market with the potential to fully execute the contract. 15. The contracting authority may invalidate the public procurement procedure pursuant to Article 257 of the Public Procurement Law, i.e., if the funds that the contracting authority intended to allocate to finance all or part of the contract have not been awarded.Splitting the contract into separate lots would be technically unjustified and could lead to incompatibility between individual vehicle components, preventing its proper functioning as a cohesive system. This would also complicate determining warranty liability, as defects could result from interactions between components supplied by different contractors. Execution of the entire contract by a single contractor ensures full technical compatibility, uniform responsibility for the quality and functionality of the entire vehicle, and the possibility of efficient servicing. Failure to split the contract does not restrict competition or hinder access for SMEs, as there are contractors on the market with the potential to complete the contract in its entirety. 15. The contracting authority may invalidate the public procurement procedure pursuant to Article 257 of the Public Procurement Law, i.e., if the funds the contracting authority intended to allocate to finance all or part of the contract have not been awarded.Splitting the contract into separate lots would be technically unjustified and could lead to incompatibility between individual vehicle components, preventing its proper functioning as a cohesive system. This would also complicate determining warranty liability, as defects could result from interactions between components supplied by different contractors. Execution of the entire contract by a single contractor ensures full technical compatibility, uniform responsibility for the quality and functionality of the entire vehicle, and the possibility of efficient servicing. Failure to split the contract does not restrict competition or hinder access for SMEs, as there are contractors on the market with the potential to complete the contract in its entirety. 15. The contracting authority may invalidate the public procurement procedure pursuant to Article 257 of the Public Procurement Law, i.e., if the funds the contracting authority intended to allocate to finance all or part of the contract have not been awarded. with tender notice no. 707746-2026 published on 14 Oct 2026. The tender is due to expire on 29 Oct 2026. This tender is sourced from TED Europa and is eligible for suppliers interested in Rescue vehicles, Firefighting vehicles, Firefighting vehicle ladders. Interested bidders can obtain further information including complete bid documents or ways to participate by registering on Tender Impulse and referencing via Tender Impulse ID 15504839.